Abstract

Forensic DNA profiling and databasing have become increasingly significant resources for criminal investigations in many jurisdictions. More recently, there have been attempts to recruit these technologies into the policing of cross-border organized crime, migration and terrorism. We examined the trajectory of one such attempt, the establishment and operationalisation of the Prüm Treaty within the European Union. We describe the way in which early technological considerations underlying DNA profile exchange, managed within law enforcement bureaucracies, have given way to a concern with broader societal issues and the necessity for a multifaceted scrutiny of this particular technolegal innovation. Central to this issue is the hybrid nature of exchange arrangements created as a result of the European Council Decision on Prüm (2008). The Prüm Treaty departs from the increasingly normalized framework for criminal justice cooperation, and at the same time, does not facilitate DNA exchange within a more traditional multinational instrument. We consider the significance and implications of the political decisions behind Prüm, as well as the consequences for the development of transnational DNA exchange in terms of three key issues: technical and scientific challenges (viability); legal challenges (legitimacy); and ethical and socioeconomic challenges (acceptability). Unless the Prüm structure is reformed, an important and promising initiative may remain encumbered with unresolved problems of legitimacy and acceptability. A lack of direct democratic involvement of many member states precluded the creation of consensus on issues such as privacy, data protection and due process issues, upon which legal and political regimes could then act.

Keywords

References

Alain, M. (2001). The trapeze artists and the ground crew: police cooperation and intelligence exchange mechanisms in Europe and North America: A comparative empirical study. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 11(1), 1–27.Google Scholar

Balzacq, T. (2006). From a Prum of 7 to a Prum of 8+: What are the implications?, Brussels: European parliament, directorate general internal policies.Google Scholar

Balzacq, T., Bigo, D., Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2006). Security and the two-level game: the treaty of Prüm, the EU and the management of threats, Centre for the European Policy Studies Working Document 234.Google Scholar

Bigo, D., Carrera, S., and Guild, E. (2009). The Challenge project: final policy recommendations on the changing landscape of European liberty and security, Challenge Research Paper No.16, September.Google Scholar

Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) (2007). Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance.London: Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar

Sandler, T. (2006). Recognizing the limits to cooperation behind national borders: financing the control of transnational terrorism. In I. Kaul& P. Conceiçào (Eds.), The New public Finance: Responding To Global Challenges New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schneider, P. (2009). Expansion of the European standard set of DNA database loci - the current situation, Profiles in DNA, March. Available at www.promega.com.

Schuller, W. (2009). Interpol and international DNA exchange, first meeting of forensic specialists, organization of american states, Washington D.C. 24–25 September 2009.Google Scholar